Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutMinutes - 2000/03/28 - Regular" " PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 28, 2000 INITIATION: 1. CALL TO ORDER Pursuant to the Agenda posted March 24, 2000, Vice - Chairman Zovak called the meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, March 28, 2000. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners - Arrighi, Griffiths, Seibert, Zovak Commissioner Seibert moved to excuse Chairman Capra for cause, seconded by Commissioner Arrighi, and unanimously carried. Also Present: City Attorney Martin, Community Development Director Dawson and Associate Planner Williams 4. TIME FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO SPEAK: None 5. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of February 22, 2000 Commissioner Griffiths moved to approve the Consent Calendar, seconded by Commissioner Seibert, and unanimously carried. 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None 7. NEW BUSINESS: A. DISCUSSION: INTERPRETATION Site: 5610 -5620 WELLAND AVENUE Applicant STAN FAIRCHILD Request: AN INTERPRETATION FOR THE REMODEL OF AN EXISTING RECREATION ROOM WITHIN AN EXISTING LEGAL NON- CONFORMING APARTMENT COMPLEX AT 5610 -5620 WELLAND AVENUE Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2000 Page 2 Director Dawson summarized the Staff report dated March 28, 2000. Director Dawson stated that they would like to proceed and remodel the existing recreation room to include three new, full bathrooms, one full bath to serve the pool and the changing room and two full baths in what would be the recreation room. He went on to explain that this request has prompted an interpretation as to whether or not the shower /bathtub facility should be permitted within an existing recreation room serving this legal, non - conforming residential development. Director Dawson stated that Staff's recommendation would be to make the interpretation that the existing recreation room serving the legal, non - conforming apartment complex may be maintained and repaired but may not be upgraded or altered to include full bathroom facilities. Associate Planner Williams showed and narrated the videotape of the proposed project site. Commissioner Griffiths inquired as to what Director Dawson meant by the proposed project could result in a liability issue. • Director Dawson explained that he was not referring to liability from the City's standpoint but a general concern if private bathrooms were allowed to be installed in a public recreational facilty. Paul Sandhu, owner of the property, stated there was another building which the videotape did not show which faces Santa Anita and is quite a distance away from the pool and the proposed recreation room. He stated it was at this building where they were planning to have exercise equipment and that's why they wanted to have bathroom facilities located in this area. He also explained that it was his real estate agent's suggestion that he include this workout facility to attract a better quality of tenants. Commissioner Seibert inquired why they were changing out shower facilities for bathtub facilities if this room was to function as a gym -type facility. Mr. Sandhu stated that the tub units had been purchased for a low price. He also stated that he did not understand the 410 objections to the project. " Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2000 Page 3 " " Commissioner Seibert stated that he was concerned that once the project was approved that the units would be turned into actual apartment units because those facilities were not suitable for a recreational -type use. Commissioner Seibert also inquired as to whether Mr. Sandhu's contractor was licensed. Mr. Sandhu stated that he was. Vice - Chairman Zovak inquired as to when Mr. Sandhu purchased the property and what this area had been used for since that time. Mr. Sandhu stated that he had purchased the building in 1994 and that the area had been used for storage purposes. Stan Fairchild, 19032 Gledhill Street, Northridge, stated the storage facility was in a state of disrepair -- termite damaged, holes in the drywall, etc. -- that it could not be put back to what it was originally because none of it could be used. Mr. Fairchild stated that the issue of liability comes into play because the tenants are having to run across to the other apartment building(s) for showering, etc. Commissioner Seibert inquired as to what year Mr. Fairchild had gotten his Contractor's License and why had he started this project without first getting the proper permits. Mr. Fairchild stated that he had been licensed since 1992 and he was only doing demolition work; no repairs had been started. He also stated that he realized he had made a mistake in not applying for the permits first. Vice - Chairman Zovak inquired as to whether the plans were correct that there were two existing showers in the facility. Mr. Fairchild stated that, yes, the plans were correct, that there were two saunas and two bathrooms. Vice - Chairman Zovak inquired as to whether there were any plans to continue any type of sauna use. Mr. Fairchild stated that there were not. The saunas had been removed. They had been badly damaged with graffiti, etc. Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2000 Page 4 Commissioner Griffiths again inquired as to the reasoning behind installing tubs instead of showers. Mr. Fairchild stated that the major reason enclosures was the cost factor; there was less required and no tile work. Director Dawson inquired as to whether there intention of retaining the kitchen facility. Mr. Fairchild stated that there were no BBQ facilities in the area; therefore, they would like to retain the kitchen for food preparation purposes. Commissioner Arrighi stated that based upon statements made by the contractor and the owner as well as the submitted plans, that he would make a recommendation to adopt Staff's interpretation that the existing recreation room serving a legal, non - conforming apartment complex be maintained the way it is; that they be allowed to upgrade the existing facilities but not converted with bathtubs and that the contractor take out the necessary permits to do such upgrade. for tub plumbing was any Commissioner Seibert stated that he felt it was an expansion of a non - conforming use and did not qualify for the interpretation. He stated the facilities should be maintained in the same configuration as they presently are. Vice- Chairman Zovak clarified that would be in line with Staff's interpretation in that the facilities should be maintained and the bathroom fixtures would simply be replaced. Commissioner Griffiths stated that he was of the same mind, that the saunas could be removed and the bathroom fixtures replaced. He stated that he was in agreement with Staff's interpretation. Vice- Chairman Zovak also agreed with Staff's interpretation that the remodel and expansion of the bathrooms should not be allowed and that the alternative to repair what was existing would meet the needs as expressed by the owner. Commissioner Arrighi moved to adopt Staff's recommendation to make an interpretation that the recreation room serving a legal, non - conforming apartment complex be maintained or repaired but not upgraded to full bathroom facilities as discussed by the Commissioners. • • • 4110 Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2000 Page 5 Commissioner Seibert seconded the motion, and it was unanimously carried. Vice - Chairman Zovak stated that the Commission had agreed with Staff's interpretation regarding the complete renovation of the recreation room and that repairs could be made only to existing items in the existing locations of the facility. He also stated that there would be a 10 -day appeal period. Director Dawson clarified that unless the project was appealed that the Planning Commission's action would be final. B. PUBLIC HEARING: Site: Property Owner: Applicant: Request: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 5600 GRACEWOOD AVENUE SANTA ANITA CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL 5600 GRACEWOOD AVENUE TEMPLE CITY, CALIFORNIA 91780 BARBARA SAITO NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 17275 DERIAN AVENUE IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92614 A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE INSTALLATION OF A WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY WHICH WILL BE ATTACHED TO A REMOVABLE PINE TREE; AN EQUIPMENT SHELTER IS ALSO PROPOSED TO HOUSE THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT; THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED IN THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONE ON THE CITY'S ZONING MAP AND IS CLASSIFIED AS INSTITUTIONAL ON THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN MAP Community Development Director Dawson stated public notices had been sent to property owners within 300 feet of the subject site and summarized the staff report dated March 28, 2000. Associate Planner Williams showed and narrated the videotape of the project site. Vice - Chairman Zovak inquired as to how tall the new light standards were that had been installed at Live Oak Park. Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2000 Page 6 Director Dawson stated that the lights in the outfield were 80 feet high and the others were 60 feet. He stated that the monopole would be about the same size as the tallest light poles. Director Dawson stated that there were eleven conditions of approval that had to be met. He made specific reference to two, that the parking lot had to be re- surfaced and that if technology changed in the future, that the pole and the antenna would have to be removed. He stated that this would be the responsibility of the property owner. Commissioner Seibert inquired as to why the equipment was not installed at Live Oak Park. Director Dawson explained that there were complications involving the park location. There were objections to having the antenna in the park, tennis players did not like the proposed placement of the equipment shelter and there were objections to the storage unit blocking visibility. Vice - Chairman Zovak inquired as to whether there were any other poles in the city as tall as this proposed pine tree /pole. Director Dawson stated the pole outside the Civic Center was 75 feet tall. There being no further questions from the Commission, Vice - Chairman Zovak opened the public hearing and invited interested individuals to come forward and speak on the matter. Barbara Saito, Nextel Communications, 17275 Derian, Irvine, stated that she had read the Staff report and the conditions of approval and that Nextel accepted the conditions. • • Ms. Saito explained that Nextel had been looking for a location in the Temple City area for quite some time and it had been difficult locating one because Temple City is a very heavy residential area. Ms. Saito also explained that the reason for using a pine tree is that multiple carriers could be placed on it because there are branches all the way down which are used to hide additional antennas. She stated this was an 40 advantage over using a palm tree because only one antenna could be installed at the top under the fronds. " " Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2000 Page 7 Ms. Saito further explained that there were several trees along Gracewood and in the general area that would help to buffer the whole area. Vice - Chairman Zovak inquired as to what area Nextel was trying to cover. Ms. Saito stated that they needed to place an antenna in this area to be able to hand off to the other sites in the area so that continuous coverage could be supplied. She stated that it was an approximate 1 -2 mile radius. City Attorney Martin inquired as to whether Nextel was applying for one array at the top of the pine tree. Ms. Saito explained that, yes, it would only be the one array at the top. City Attorney Martin requested that Ms. Saito explain the Telecommunications Act to the Commission. Ms. Saito explained that cities are preempted from prohibiting telecommunications towers unless by substantial evidence they can prove that there is a hazard or danger or harm that would ensue from such installation. Vice - Chairman Zovak inquired as to the number of panel antennas that would be installed. Ms. Saito explained that the standard is 12 . antennas, four per side in a triangular shape. Director Dawson inquired as to the fencing in of the equipment and the use of barbed wire. Ms. Saito explained that was a standard for a different community. Commissioner Seibert inquired as to whether there was a problem with vandalism on this type of site. Ms. Saito explained that they did not anticipate a problem in this location but that in rural sites and parks it was a problem with graffiti and people climbing poles. She stated that they did like to fence the area to keep people a certain distance from the pole. She also stated that barbed wire would not be essential to this particular site. Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2000 Page 8 John Stacey, 10324 Daines Drive, inquired of City Attorney Martin whether the Telecommunications Act required that a pole must be placed wherever a company wanted it or just somewhere within the city. City Attorney Martin explained that the Act preempts cities from disapproving towers unless they can substantiate that there is a hazard in connection with the tower. Mr. Stacey stated that he thought that 5600 Gracewood was the worst possible site for this pole because of it being on the premises of a convalescent hospital which cared for the aged who suffered from dementia. He stated on many occasions patients had wandered off from the facility and he found them on his street and escorted them back. City Attorney Martin inquired as to whether Mr. Stacey was referring to the electromagnetic field. Mr. Stacey stated that he was concerned because the patients in this hospital suffered from dementia, Alzheimer's and other types of memory loss which made having a tall pole on their premises a hazard to them. Mr. Stacey also inquired as to whether there would be flashing beacon lights atop the pole. He stated that if this were the case, that this would pose a nuisance to the residents in the area. Mr. Stacey commented that years ago when the convalescent hospital was established that the City Council agreed that there would be no further building on this site because of the lack of available parking. He expressed concern that the installation of this equipment shelter would take away more of the parking spaces. Mr. Stacey further inquired as to what the notification requirements were with regard to residents in the area. Director Dawson explained that they would be moving the trash enclosure to be in line with the building and therefore no parking spaces would be lost. He further explained that the parking area to the east of the building was so under utilized that it had not been well maintained. Ms. Saito stated that Nextel did not intend to light the pole at all with red lights or strobe lights. She explained that the FAA did not require such lighting. " " Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2000 Page 9 City Attorney Martin inquired as to whether Ms. Saito had anything in writing from the FAA which stated that lighting was not required. Ms. Saito stated that she did not have it with her but that she could provide it. Ms. Saito further stated that the reason Mr. Stacey was not noticed was because they had sent notices to everyone within 300 feet of the site and his address was not within that radius. Director Dawson stated that the reason Mr. Stacey may not have been noticed is because there are actually two parcels involved and the measurement may have been done from the northernmost parcel, which would not have included his address. He further stated that the pole would be located on the northernmost parcel. Commissioner Arrighi inquired as to whether there would be a chain link fence with a locked gate around the pole. Ms. Saito indicated that there would be a six -foot high fence and double gate around the pole as well as the equipment shelter. There being no one else wishing to speak, Commissioner Griffiths moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Seibert, and unanimously carried. Commissioner Seibert stated that the location was a convenient one and that he was in favor of the project. Commissioner Griffiths concurred. Commissioner Arrighi concurred. Vice - Chairman Zovak stated that he was in favor of the project for the reasons that it was conveniently located in a well- buffered zone, it would have no lighting on it, it would not be eliminating any parking and it would be fenced. Commissioner Seibert moved to approve Conditional Use Permit 00 -1411 and adopt a resolution to allow the installation of a wireless telecommunications facility and equipment shelter. Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2000 Page 10 Commissioner Arrighi seconded the motion, and it was unanimously carried. Vice - Chairman Zovak announced that the Planning Commission had approved the request and that there would be a 10 -day appeal period in which anyone may appeal the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council. C. PUBLIC HEARING: MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99- 1400 /ZONE VARIANCE 00- 1410 Site: 9070 Las Tunas Drive Property Owner/ Applicant: Architect: Request: YO LEI LAI 5933 BARTLETT AVENUE SAN GABRIEL, CALIFORNIA 91776 GARY WANG & ASSOCIATES, INC. 573 MONTEREY PASS ROAD, UNIT C MONTEREY PARK, CALIFORNIA 91754 A MODIFICATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND ZONE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR A PROPOSED RESTAURANT AND RETAIL BAKERY AS THE MAIN TENANT IN ADDITION TO OFFICE SPACE WITHIN A TWO -STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING; THIS REQUEST WOULD MODIFY A PREVIOUS SUBMITTAL; IT WOULD EXTEND THE HOURS OF OPERATION AND PERMIT OUTSIDE DINING WITH A TOTAL OF 39 PARKING SPACES; THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED IN THE WEST COMMERCIAL (WC) DISTRICT OF THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA. Director Dawson stated public notices had been sent to property owners within 500 feet of the subject site and summarized the Staff report dated March 28, 2000. Vice - Chairman Zovak inquired as to what were some of the concerns involving demolishing of the existing building. • • • " Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2000 Page 11 " " Director Dawson stated that it was a time issue because there was a two -unit apartment on the property and there would be a loss of income involved. Vice - Chairman Zovak inquired as to whether there was an issue of a new tenant in the building and possibly some illegal signage. Director Dawson stated that there had been a temporary banner attached to a free - standing sign and also a new tenant. He further stated that the illegal signage had been removed. There being no further questions from the Commission, Vice - Chairman Zovak opened the public hearing and invited interested individuals to come forward to speak on the matter. Gar Wan " architect for the .ro" ert and Yo Lei Lai property owner, 5933 Bartlett Avenue, San Gabriel, came forward to answer questions regarding the proposed project. Commissioner Seibert inquired as to why Ms. Lai wanted to keep the restaurant open until 2:00 a.m. Ms. Lai stated that she owned and operated three other restaurants in the San Gabriel area which did not sell beer or alcohol and they all stayed open until 2:00 a.m. and she would like this restaurant to stay open until this time as well. Commissioner Seibert inquired as to what restaurants in the San Gabriel area were open until 2:00 a.m. Ms. Lai stated that she had one restaurant in San Gabriel on Valley Boulevard, one in Alhambra on Valley Boulevard and Garfield and one in Monterey Park by Lincoln Plaza. City Attorney Martin asked if Ms. Lai would be bussing people to the site. Ms. Lai stated that she would not. Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2000 Page :12 City Attorney Martin inquired as to what Ms. Lai's time frame was for building providing she received approval of the project. Gary Wang stated that once the plans have been approved by the Planning Department the project should be complete within three or four months. Vice - Chairman Zovak inquired as to when demolition on the two units would begin. Gary Wang stated that they would start demolition of the two units after the Planning Department had approved the plans. Commissioner Arrighi inquired as to what the proposed use of the second story would be. Gary Wang stated that the second story would be office spaces for rent. Commissioner Seibert inquired if the project would be abandoned if the plans were not approved. Gary Wang stated that Ms. Lai would abandon the project and put the property back on the market. Commissioner Arrighi inquired as to what types of food would be served at the restaurant. Gary Wang stated that it would be a bakery and fast -food type of restaurant offering both American and Chinese food. Vice - Chairman Zovak inquired as to whether there was any proposal to offer alcohol or entertainment in the future. Gary Wang stated that none of Ms. Lai's restaurants served alcohol and she did not anticipate doing so in the future. Vice - Chairman Zovak inquired as to whether all of the conditions as outlined in the Staff report had been read. Gary Wang stated that they had. Commissioner Griffiths stated he did not see a condition in the Staff report that dealt directly with when the demolition should occur. • • • " Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2000 Page 13 " Director Dawson stated that the only condition put in relative to the demolition was the free - standing billboard sign to be demolished within 30 days of the end of . the appeal period. He also stated there was no longer a condition for demolition. Gary Wang stated that the units would have to be demolished before they could proceed with the project. Commissioner Griffiths inquired as to whether a condition should be added regarding maintenance of the property. Director Dawson stated that for residential projects a standard condition is used that the property needs to be maintained adequately in a neat and orderly fashion similar to property in the area while plans are being processed and so forth; and if it is not, then the City can come back and pull the Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Griffiths stated that just as a matter of information, some projects go on for ten years as they wait for financial backing to come through, and in the meantime the City would need to be assured that the site would be maintained. Ms. Lai inquired at what level would she have to maintain the site. Director Dawson explained that the site was in a prominent location and as such would need to be maintained by trimming the grass, etc. Ms. Lai stated that she had just recently taken over the property and had hired a manager and she would see to it that the property was maintained. Commissioner Griffiths suggested adding a condition that the property should not be allowed to become a nuisance. City Attorney Martin inquired as to the total square footage of the property and the components by square footage. Gary Wang stated the total square footage of the building was 4,298. " City Attorney Martin inquired as to whether the second - story offices were about half of that square footage. Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2000 Page 14 Gary Wang stated that it was a little less; the offices were approximately 2,000 and the bakery was 1,800. Director Dawson clarified that the total area was a little less than 8,500 square feet; the first floor being approximately 3,800 usable square feet and the second floor approximately 4,000. Gary Wang stated those figures were correct. Kathryn Cobbin, 596 N. Sierra Madre Blvd., Pasadena, stated that she owned the properties at 9080 and 9082 Lyledale. She stated that she was not notified of this matter back in November but had only learned of it the day before. Ms. Cobbin stated that the proposed zoning change would have a negative impact upon property value and the quiet enjoyment of said properties. Ms. Cobbin stated that Lyledale was a narrow street which was not a through street and which had less- than - adequate parking. She also stated that the proposed parking lot war triangular in shape and would not accommodate as many car: as thought to be required by the restaurant, which would have overflow cars parking on Lyledale. She further stated that overflow parking on Lyledale would pose a safety issue in that the street is already narrow and it would be difficult for safety -type vehicles to access the houses on that street if it were heavily parked with cars. Ms. Cobbin also stated that outside dining combined with the 2:00 a.m. closing time and the threat of crime would interfere with the quiet enjoyment of her tenants and she did not want to lose her tenants or have her property de- valued over this project. Director Dawson stated that these types of issues were unfortunately a problem in many areas along Las Tunas where residential properties were in close proximity to commercial properties. Rita Grijalva, 9082 E. Lyledale Street, stated that seven families with children lived on Lyledale and it was not a through street and there was already a problem with cars racing down the street. She stated that she was concerned for the safety of the children on the street. She also expressed concern for the possible noise emanating from the restaurant into the early morning hours. • • • " " Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2000 Page 15 Raymond Griialva, 9080 E. Lyledale Street, stated that Lyledale was a very small street which was difficult to access and the situation would be complicated by adding a parking lot to an already overcrowded street. He was concerned that he would not have access to his own driveway /garage area. He also expressed concern over the fact that the restaurant would be open until 2:00 a.m. leaving only a four -hour window in which to get a good night's sleep. Vice - Chairman Zovak inquired as to whether there were garages in the area. Mr. Grijalva stated that there were two garages. He also stated that there already existed a parking problem because of the theater across the street and also Mama Petrillo's restaurant. April Grijalva, 9082 E. Lyledale Street, stated that allowing the restaurant to go in would be making an already bad parking situation worse. She also expressed concern about the safety of her children who play out in the street and the late hours of the restaurant. She requested that the Commission modify the project to make it smaller or move it to a different location. Gary Wang stated that the tenants were right in that Lyledale is a private street of which Ms. Lai owned half and she was entitled to use it for her restaurant. Commissioner Seibert moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Griffiths, and unanimously carried. Vice - Chairman Zovak inquired as to whether all the various divisions had reviewed the plans. Director Dawson stated that the traffic division had looked at the plans as well as Public Works. He stated that Building & Safety and the Fire Department had not yet looked at them but that they would when the plans came in for plan check. Commissioner Griffiths inquired as to what the status of the street was and who had control over the barricade which was at the end of Lyledale. Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2000 Page 16 Director Dawson stated that some research would have to be done to determine the status of the street as well as the barricade. Commissioner Griffiths suggested looking into ways of mitigating some of the resident's concerns by looking into alternative plans involving the entrance driveway. Commissioner Seibert raised the question of whether the City had any jurisdiction over Lyledale being that it was a private street. City Attorney Martin confirmed the City had no jurisdiction over the street. Commissioner Griffiths stated that the "public" looking for parking really had no right to be on that street and that perhaps a sign which said "not a through street" would help mitigate the problem. Commissioner Arrighi stated that it was not the City's responsibility to post signs but that it was the responsibility of the owners of the street to post signs and tow vehicles away. Commissioner Griffiths stated that perhaps moving the driveway north would mitigate a lot of the problems with cars and ingress and egress. City Attorney Martin inquired if Lyledale had ever been resurfaced. And if so, by whom. Director Dawson stated that he was not aware of the maintenance of the street. Commissioner Griffiths stated that he had some concerns relative to the 2:00 a.m. closing time and the traffic flow and parking problems. However, he stated he would approve the Zone Variance and revised Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Seibert stated that he could approve the project although a 2:00 a.m. closing time was not reasonable, especially being so close in proximity to residential property. Commissioner Arrighi stated that he would also like to see the hours changed to a more reasonable closing time, but other than that he could approve the project. • • • Planning Commission Minutes r March 28, 2000 Page 17 • Vice - Chairman Zovak stated that he did have concerns about the possible impacts on Lyledale as well as the residents. He also stated that the proposed hours were extensive and should be curtailed. Commissioner Griffiths stated that he would like to have an expression from the architect about whether or not relocation of the driveway approach would be possible and helpful in mitigating the problem. Gary Wang stated that what Commissioner Griffiths suggested was a possibility and Ms. Lai was agreeable to the change in plans. Director Dawson suggested adding a condition of approval that the driveway on Sultana should be reviewed by the traffic engineer in an attempt to minimize commercial traffic on Lyledale and at the same time to provide safe ingress and egress of the subject site. City Attorney Martin stated that probably what should happen is to approve the project in concept indicating the Variance will be granted and the CUP will be granted, not actually granted, and the matter will be held until the architect comes back with an alternate plan for ingress and egress to the parking lot acceptable to the Planning Commission. And at that time, the Variance and CUP could be automatically approved. Vice - Chairman Zovak suggested giving some direction with regard to the hours of operation. City Attorney Martin stated that a 2:00 a.m. closing time was a step up on a liquor license and he felt it should work the other way around, that they should close at 10:00 or 12:00 and if that worked out and there were no problems, then they could move to 2:00. Commissioner Griffiths moved that Mr. Martin's suggestions be implemented regarding the mitigation of the parking and the access to the parking and the business hours be reduced to 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. on weekdays and 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday. City Attorney Martin explained to the applicant that the matter would be approved if they could come up with an alternate ingress and egress plan with the changes indicated. He stated that if they could not, the matter would be denied. Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2000 Page 18 City Attorney Martin also stated that for those reasons the hearing would be continued to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission at which time they would need to submit an acceptable alternate plan for ingress and egress. Vice - Chairman Zovak acknowledged that the applicants agreed to the continuance. Commissioner Seibert seconded the motion, and it was unanimously carried. 8. COMMUNICATIONS: None 9. MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS: A. The City council at their regularly- scheduled meeting of March 21, 2000 continued the public hearing for Avenues Club addressed at 5449 Rosemead Boulevard. 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Vice - Chairman Zovak adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m. The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission is Tuesday, April 11, 2000, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 5938 Kauffman Avenue, Temple City. (-)c \I;ce- Chairman \eker�1�